18R3005.PDF

Savannah District Area of Responsibility

(AOR)

Solicitation Number

W912HN-18-R-3005

Two Phase Design-Build General Construction MATOC Procurement and Contracting Requirements and Specification Division 01 May 2018

U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SAVANNAH

CORPS OF ENGINEERS

100 WEST OGLETHORPE AVENUE

SAVANNAH, GEORGIA 31401-3640

US Army Corps of Engineers Savannah District

2- Phase D/ B MATOC 18R3005

CESAS AOR

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS

DI VI SI ON 01 - GENERAL REQUI REMENTS

01 11 00 SUMMARY OF WORK

01 30 00 ADMI NI STRATI VE REQUI REMENTS

01 32 01. 00 10 PROJECT SCHEDULE

01 33 00 SUBMI TTAL PROCEDURES

01 33 29 SUSTAI NABI LI TY REPORTI NG

01 35 26 GOVERNMENTAL SAFETY REQUI REMENTS

01 42 00 SOURCES FOR REFERENCE PUBLI CATI ONS

01 45 00. 00 10 QUALI TY CONTROL

01 45 00. 15 10 RESI DENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM CONTRACTOR MODE ( RMS CM)

01 50 00 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTI ON FACI LI TI ES AND CONTROLS

01 57 19 TEMPORARY ENVI RONMENTAL CONTROLS

01 74 19 CONSTRUCTI ON AND DEMOLI TI ON WASTE MANAGEMENT

01 78 00 CLOSEOUT SUBMI TTALS

01 78 23 OPERATI ON AND MAI NTENANCE DATA

- - End of Pr oj ect Tabl e of Cont ent s - -

PROJECT TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1

A. This is a Tw o Phase Design-Build General Construction Multiple Aw ard Task Order Contract (MATOC): MIL 03 B. The solicitation is a 100% Small Business Set-Aside acquisition for the aw ard of up to f ive (5) Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity Multiple Aw ard Task Order Contracts w ith a total capacity of $75,000,000.00. The aw arded contracts w ill be for a base period of tw o (2) years w ith three (3) one-year option years to extend the term of the contract.

C. The proposal of the successful Offerors shall be incorporated by reference upon aw ard of the contract.

D. The Government w ill evaluate Phase I proposals IAW the criteria described herein and w ill select no more than five (5) of the most highly qualif ied Offerors to participate in Phase II.

E. The Magnitude of this contract is betw een $25M and $100M. The order limitation is stated at 52.216-19 in Section 00 70 00.

F. Please note that failure to f ill out ALL clauses/provisions in Section 00 45 00 may result in your proposal being found Non-Responsive.

GREGORY M GRAHAM 912-652-5476

NOTE: In sealed bid solicitations "offer" and "offeror" mean "bid" and "bidder".

10. THE GOVERNMENT REQUIRES PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK DESCRIBED IN THESE DOCUMENTS

NEGOTIATED

18-May-2018

(RFP)

(IFB)

X

CALL:

B. TELEPHONE NO. (Include area code) (NO COLLECT CALLS)

See Item 7

2. TYPE OF SOLICITATION

SEALED BID

3. DATE ISSUED

9. FOR INFORMATION A. NAME

SOLICITATION

NSN 7540-01-155-3212 1442-101 STANDARD FORM 1442 (REV. 4-85)

Prescribed by GSA FAR (48 CFR) 53.236-1(e)

11. The Contractor shall begin performance w ithin _______10 calendar days and complete it w ithin ________ calendar days after receiving aw ard, X notice to proceed. This performance period is X mandatory, negotiable. (See _________________________52.211-10

12 A. THE CONTRACTOR MUST FURNISH ANY REQUIRED PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT BONDS?

(If "YES," indicate within how many calendar days after award in Item 12B.)

X YES NO

13. ADDITIONAL SOLICITATION REQUIREMENTS:

A. Sealed offers in original and __________ copies to perform the w ork required are due at the place specif ied in Item 8 by ___________ local time ______________18 Jun 2018 (date). If this is a sealed bid solicitation, offers must be publicly opened at that time.

shall be marked to show the offeror's name and address, the solicitation number, and the date and time of fers are due.

B. An offer guarantee X is, is not required.

C. All offers are subject to the (1) w ork requirements, and (2) other provisions and clauses incorporated in the solicitation in full text or by reference.

D. Offers providing less than _______120 calendar days for Government acceptance after the date offers are due w ill not be considered and w ill be rejected.

SOLICITATION, OFFER,

AND AWARD

(Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

1. SOLICITATION NO.

IMPORTANT - The "offer" section on the reverse must be fully completed by offeror.

4. CONTRACT NO.

7. ISSUED BY CODE

USACE - SAVANNAH DISTRICT

100 W. OGLETHORPE AVE

SAVANNAH GA 31401

W912HN

PAGE OF PAGES

1 OF

CODE

(Title, identifying no., date):

12B. CALENDAR DAYS

02:00 PM (hour) Sealed envelopes containing offers

5. REQUISITION/PURCHASE REQUEST NO. 6. PROJECT NO.

8. ADDRESS OFFER TO (If Other Than Item 7)

FAX:TEL: TEL: FAX:

W912HN18R3005 87

20B. SIGNATURE

(REV. 4-85)STANDARD FORM 1442 BACK

TO SIGN

NSN 7540-01-155-3212

SOLICITATION, OFFER, AND AWARD (Continued) (Construction, Alteration, or Repair)

CODE FACILITY CODE

17. The offeror agrees to perform the w ork required at the prices specif ied below in strict accordance w ith the terms of this solicitation, if this offer is accepted by the Government in w riting w ithin ________ calendar days after the date offers are due.

the minimum requirements stated in Item 13D. Failure to insert any number means the offeror accepts the minimum in Item 13D.)

AMOUNTS SEE SCHEDULE OF PRICES

18. The offeror agrees to furnish any required performance and payment bonds.

19. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF AMENDMENTS

(The offeror acknowledges receipt of amendments to the solicitation -- give number and date of each)

AMENDMENT NO.

DATE

20A. NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON AUTHORIZED TO SIGN

OFFER (Type or print)

AWARD (To be completed by Government)

21. ITEMS ACCEPTED:

22. AMOUNT 23. ACCOUNTING AND APPROPRIATION DATA

24. SUBMIT INVOICES TO ADDRESS SHOWN IN ITEM

(4 copies unless otherwise specified)

CODE

(Insert any number equal to or greater than

20C. OFFER DATE

25. OTHER THAN FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION PURSUANT TO

10 U.S.C. 2304(c) 41 U.S.C. 253(c)

CODE27. PAYMENT WILL BE MADE BY:26. ADMINISTERED BY

(Include ZIP Code)14. NAME AND ADDRESS OF OFFEROR 15. TELEPHONE NO. (Include area code)

See Item 14

(Include only if different than Item 14)16. REMITTANCE ADDRESS

30B. SIGNATURE

29. AWARD (Contractor is not required to sign this document.)

document and return _______ copies to issuing office.) Contractor agrees Your of f er on this solicitation, is hereby accepted as to the items listed. This award con-to f urnish and deliv er all items or perf orm all work, requisitions identif ied summates the contract, which consists of (a) the Gov ernment solicitation and on this f orm and any continuation sheets f or the consideration stated in this y our of f er, and (b) this contract award. No f urther contractual document is contract. The rights and obligations of the parties to this contract shall be necessary .

gov erned by (a) this contract award, (b) the solicitation, and (c) the clauses, representations, certif ications, and specif ications or incorporated by ref er-ence in or attached to this contract.

30A. NAME AND TITLE OF CONTRACTOR OR PERSON AUTHORIZED 31A. NAME OF CONTRACTING OFFICER (Type or print)

30C. DATE

(Type or print)

TEL: EMAIL:

31B. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 31C. AWARD DATE

BY

CONTRACTING OFFICER WILL COMPLETE ITEM 28 OR 29 AS APPLICABLE

(Contractor is required to sign this28. NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT

(M ust be fully completed by offeror)OFFER

W912HN18R3005

Section SF 30 - Block 14 Continuation Page (SF 30)

AMENDMENT 0001

The purpose of this amendment is to make the following changes:

1) Internal Issuing Office has been updated, but does not affect the Solicitation in anyway.

2) The PPQ form provided as a separate attachment with the original solicitation shall be omitted. Offerors shall utilize the PPQ form provided as Attachment 3 within the Solicitation.

3) All further changes noted below are made in red font, and all deletions are struck through and red font as well.

a) Section 00 21 00, tables throughout have been numbered.

b) Section 00 21 00, paragraph 1.6 was added.

c) Section 00 21 00, Paragraph 3.5, Tab E was revised to provide clarification in the submittal of a Financial Documents and the Surety Letter.

d) Section 00 21 00, Paragraph 3.5 was corrected to reflect the correct tab orders from Tabs

G, H, I to Tabs F, G, H.

e) Section 00 21 00, Paragraph 4.1.1, The Contract Specialist contact information was updated.

f) Section 00 21 00. Paragraph 4.1.2 was updated to clarify the requirements.

g) Section 00 21 00, Paragraph 6.1 was changed to state "minimum construction value of no less than $3 million" to reflect the correct project minimum.

h) Section 00 21 00, Paragraph 7 was updated to clarify the importance of each of the

Factors.

i) Section 00 21 00, Paragraph 14.5 was deleted in its entirety.

Section 00 01 15 - List of Drawing Sheets

WAGE DETERMINATION

Wage Determination(s) will be determined on a Task Order basis.

Section 00 20 00 - Instructions for Procurement

ADDITIONAL NOTES TO OFFERORS

1. LIQUIDATED DAMAGES: Will be made on a Task Order basis.

2. MONTHLY ANTICIPATED ADVERSE WEATHER DELAY: Will be made on a Task Order basis.

3. GENERAL DECISION NUMBER: See Section 00 01 15. The Wage Decision may be subject to change prior to award. All proposed pricing shall include the most current wage rates. All Offerors are encouraged to review wage rates established by the Department of Labor prior to submitting proposals.

4. QUALITY CONTROL SYSTEM (QCS): Any contract award resulting from this solicitation will require the mandatory use of the automated Quality Control System.

5. SECURITY REQUIREMENTS: Increased security at military installations may require vehicle and personnel registration, as well as 100% ID checks and random vehicle searches.

TECHNICAL MATTERS:

Technical inquiries are to be submitted via Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet at www.projnet.org/projnet. All questions regarding this Request for Proposal (RFP) must be submitted in writing via Bidder Inquiry in ProjNet within no less than 10 calendar days prior to the date established in the RFP for receipt of proposals. The Government reserves the right to decline addressing questions received less than 10 calendar days prior to receipt of proposals.

If an Offeror believes the requirements in this Request for Proposal contain an error, omission, or are otherwise unsound, the Offeror shall immediately notify the Contract Specialist in writing with supporting rationale. The Offer is reminded that the Government reserves the right to award this Request for Proposal based on the initial proposal, as received, without discussion.

To submit and review bid inquiry items, Offerors will need to be a current registered user or selfregister into the system. To self-register, go to web page, click BID tab, select Bidder Inquiry, select agency USACE, enter Key for this solicitation listed below, your e-mail address, and click login. Fill in all required information and click create user. Verify all information on the next screen is correct and click continue. From this page you may view all bidder inquiries or add inquiry.

Offerors will receive an acknowledgement of their question via e-mail, followed by an answer to their question after it has been processed by our technical team.

Bidder Inquiry Key: SMP9PB-EEK2WA

Section 00 21 00 - Instructions

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS NOTES:

A SUBMISSION IN RESPONSE TO PHASE II IS NOT REQUIRED AS PART

OF THE PHASE I PROPOSAL. A PHASE II PROPOSAL WILL BE

REQUESTED FROM ONLY THE OFFERORS SELECTED BY THE

CONTRACTING OFFICER TO SUBMIT PROPOSALS FOR PHASE II.

THE PHASE II SUBMISSION AND EVALUATION CRITERIA ARE SUBJECT

TO CHANGE PRIOR TO THE PHASE II SOLICITATION BEING ISSUED.

DIRECTIONS FOR SUBMITTING PROPOSALS:

In an effort to reduce paperwork and reduce cost, all proposals shall be submitted electronically. This applies to both Phase One and Phase Two, except for the Bid Bond in Phase Two. All submissions shall be in Adobe PDF format.

Offerors may use compressions utility software such as WinZip or PKZip to reduce file size and facilitate transmission.

Title the file(s) in the following format:

W912HN18R3005_COMPANY NAME_ VOLUME I

W912HN18R3005_COMPANY NAME_ VOLUME II

Submit proposals electronically via the AMRDEC SAFE website at:

https://safe.amrdec.army.mil/SAFE/Welcome.aspx. At the AMRDEC SAFE website select the link: I do not have a CAC or this machine is not configured to read my CAC and I would like to access SAFE as a Guest User, to register, access the site and submit your proposal(s).

[Note: It has been reported that documents are more quickly uploaded into the AMRDEC SAFE website when using a Firefox web browser. The Government cannot verify that this is true and offers no guarantee that Offerors will have more success utilizing any particular browser.]

When your proposal is submitted via the AMRDEC SAFE website, the website will provide notification of the submittal to the Government recipients. When completing the information for transmittal at the AMRDEC SAFE website, you will be required to entere-mail addresses for the recipients. For this solicitation, the recipients will be the Contracting Officer and Contract Specialist. The Contract Specialist for this project is Mr. Gregory Graham, whose e-mail address is Gregory.M.Graham@usace.army.mil The Contracting Officer for this project is Mr. Addison Layfield, whose e-mail address is Addison.G.Layfield@usace.army.mil. These e-mail addresses are the ones you will enter as recipients.

In addition, after uploading your documents, you will be required to verify your email address before AMRDEC will send notification to the Government recipients. This is a very important step – even if you successfully upload your proposal to AMRDEC SAFE, notification will not be sent to the Government until you verify your email address, which may result in the rejection of your proposal for lateness. Follow the instructions on the AMRDEC website and the confirmation emails you receive from AMRDEC.

The date and time of delivery will be established by the time of receipt of the e-mail notification to the Contract Specialist and Contracting Officer by the AMRDEC SAFE website, not by the date and time of uploading of the proposal into the AMRDEC SAFE website. Do not assume that electronic communication is instantaneous – in fact, it can take several minutes or even hours in some cases. Please make allowances for delays in transmittal. If an electronic submission is uploaded minutes before the deadline but notification is not actually received in the recipients’ e-mail inboxes until after the deadline, the submission will be considered late.

The Government will not be responsible for proposals delivered to any location or to anyone other than those designated to receive proposals on its behalf. Offerors are responsible for ensuring that proposals are submitted so as to reach the designated recipient of proposals. Offerors are responsible for allowing sufficient time for the proposal to be received in accordance with the instructions provided.

SECTION V

SECTION 00 21 00

PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS

1. DESCRIPTION OF WORK.

1.1 This Request for Proposal (RFP) solicits for a Multiple Award Task Order Contract (MATOC) under which task orders for General Construction are expected to be issued for projects within the three state region of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.

Work contemplated on this MATOC may be conducted for Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, National Guard and Reserve Components, and other Department of Defense (DoD) and Federal Agencies located on DoD installations and those in support of other Federal and Department of Defense operations. Task Orders issued under any resultant contract(s) will be Firm-Fixed Price and may be either for Design-Build or Design-Bid-Build General Construction.

A project requiring use of civil funds is not authorized under this contract. (See solicitation section 01 11 00 for the complete scope of the anticipated contract to be awarded under this

RFP.)

1.2 For the purposes of this solicitation, the Government will utilize the Two-Phase Design-Build Selection Process.

In Phase One of the Two-Phase Design-Build selection procedure, interested Offerors will submit specified performance capability proposals for review and consideration by the Government. The Government will evaluate these performance capability proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein.

1.3 The Government will evaluate the performance capability proposals in accordance with the criteria described herein and will select no more than five (5) of the most highly qualified Offerors to participate in Phase Two.

1.4 In Phase Two of this process, the Government will evaluate both technical capability and price.

1.5 Only those Offerors who receive a written notification from the Savannah District Contracting Officer that their firm has been selected to participate in Phase Two of this solicitation are invited to submit a Phase Two proposal.

Those Offerors selected for Phase Two will be provided the technical requirements package for a Seed Task Order that will be representative of the type work and task orders anticipated to be issued under any resultant contract(s).

1.6 Evaluations of both Phase One and Phase Two will be utilized for final selections.

2. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

2.1 Who May Submit a Proposal. The requirement will be advertised as a 100% Small Business Set-Aside. Offerors submitting as a joint venture must provide the agreement forming the joint venture.

2.2 Information submitted about any company other than the Offeror, whether a predecessor company, affiliated company, subsidiary (including wholly owned subsidiaries), or subcontractors that will perform major or critical aspects of this requirement, or other associated business, WILL NOT be evaluated for any factor. Only exceptions to this is that the designer of record will be evaluated in Factor 3.

2.3 Offerors shall submit their proposal to the address shown in the schedule of the Notes to Offererors section of Standard Form 1442.

2.4 Proposals are due no later than the time and date specified in Block 13 of Standard Form 1442.

3. GENERAL PROPOSAL FORMAT FOR PHASE ONE:

3.1 Title Page. Include the title of the solicitation, solicitation number, Offeror name, and date of the submittal.

3.2 Table of Contents. Each volume of the proposal shall contain a detailed table of contents. Any materials submitted but not required by this solicitation (such as company brochures) shall be relegated to appendices.

3.3 Electronic Matter Submissions. Written material shall be on single sided 8 ½ x 11 size pages in no less than a 10 pitch or 10 font. Page limitations, where specified in the RFP, shall be considered a maximum. Pages in excess of any specified limitation shall not be evaluated.

3.4 Number of Copies. Offerors SHALL submit an electronic version (PDF Format) of the original Volume I and Volume II. Offerors SHALL submit only two files in PDF format (i.e. Volume I and Volume II). These two files should be named in a specific format: Solicitation Number, Offerors Company and the volume (i.e.

W912HN18R3005_USACE_VolumeI.pdf). Given the limited time and resources of the evaluation board, failure to provide proposal in the correct format may hinder the board's ability to evaluate the Offeror's proposal.

3.5 Tabs. Proposal shall be organized and tabbed as follows:

VOLUME I

TAB A – Standard Form 1442, completed and signed by authorized individual(s) of the Offeror. Offers submitted in the name of a Joint Venture must be signed in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the joint venture agreement as evidenced in the proposal.

TAB B – Section 00 45 00 – Representations and Certifications.

TAB C – Proposal Data Sheet – See Attachment 1 provided at the end of this section. Offerors should ensure telephone number, fax number, e-mail address and DUNS number are all included. The DUNS number provided will be used to access Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS) data. If a separate DUNS has been created for a joint venture it must also be submitted. A DUNS number shall also be provided for the Designer of Record identified in Factor 3. The Offeror should also submit its Tax ID number on the proposal data sheet.

TAB D – Joint Venture Agreement, if applicable. See paragraph 2.1, 2.2.

TAB E – Financial Information & Bonding Capability (e.g. past three years financial statements, annual reports, Dun & Bradstreet Ratings and/or number, etc.) Provide a list of all current contracts held, total dollar value, award date, anticipated completion, performance and payment bond amount. At the discretion of the offeror, the Financial Information may be submitted within the same AMRDEC submission as a separate file or may be submitted as a separate AMRDEC submission. If the Financial Information is not included within Volume 1 within Tab E, the separate file shall be labeled as: W912HN18R3005_COMPANY NAME_ VOLUME

I_FINANCIAL_INFORMATION

The Offeror is not required to submit a bid bond in Phase One but is required to submit a letter, stamped with an official seal and notarized, from the contractor’s surety validating the Offeror’s single and aggregate bonding capability and a power of attorney if applicable. Any letter found to be insufficient may affect an Offeror’s responsibility determination. Submit originals; photocopied or scanned copies are not acceptable.

The letter must be submitted via hardcopy to the district office to the address below m and must be received no later than the proposal due date and time.

US Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District ATTN: CECT-SAS-E – Gregory Graham 100 West Oglethorpe Avenue Savannah, GA 31401

FAR clause 52.228-1, “Bid Guarantee” will be included in the contract. At the discretion of the Contracting Officer, a Bid Bond will be required for each task order.

VOLUME II

TAB D –Joint Venture Agreement (Duplicate of Volume I)

TAB G F – FACTOR 1 Past Performance

TAB H G – FACTOR 2 Management Approach

TAB I H - FACTOR 3 Design Experience.

4. PHASE ONE – TAB F – FACTOR 1 – PAST PERFORMANCE

4.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS.

4.1.1 The Offeror shall demonstrate a record of construction performance and experience on recent and relevant projects using the Past Performance Questionnaire Summary Sheet, Attachment 2 and the Past Performance Questionnaire (PPQ), Attachment 3 at the end of this section. PPQ is provided for the Offeror to submit to the client (Point of Contact) for each relevant project submitted. Offeror must ensure correct phone numbers and email addresses are provided for the client. Completed PPQs must be submitted with your proposal by the specified closing date and time. Offerors should follow-up with clients to ensure timely submittal of completed questionnaires. If the offeror is unable to obtain a completed PPQ from a point of contact for a project(s) before proposal closing date, the Offeror shall complete blocks 1 – 5 of the PPQ and submit it with the proposal. Please note that, at a minimum, this first page of the PPQ must contain sufficient information for the government to determine the relevancy of the project. In addition, this will provide contract and client information for the respective project(s). The Government may call and confirm information provided by the Offeror on the PPQs with the points of contact to the extent necessary to verify the information in the PPQ or to obtain additional information. The Government reserves the right to interview other individuals if the point of contact is not available. By exception, the client may request submission of questionnaires directly to the Government’s point of contact (Contract Specialist), Crystal North Greg Graham. Request may be made via email to crystal.e.north@usace.army.mil gregory.m.graham@usace.army.mil. This request must be coordinated by the client in advance no later than five (5) business days before the proposal due date. PPQ’s submitted directly to the Contract Specialist shall be mailed via trackable means (certified US Mail, FedEx, or UPS). If the PPQ fails to arrive before the closing date and time, or if the information on the PPQ is insufficient to determine the Offeror’s name and appropriate solicitation number, it will not be considered.

Offerors are cautioned that the information submitted pertaining to a project shall be limited to the PPQ form and an additional page referenced below and shall contain enough information to determine the similarity and relevancy of a project. Likewise, Project Information submitted in a format other than or in lieu of the PPQ format (to include CCASS /ACASS/CPARS) will not be considered. Offerors shall not incorporate by reference into their proposal PPQs previously submitted for other solicitations. Offerors may submit PPQs submitted on other procurements provided they are on the NAVFAC/USACE Past Performance Questionnaire Form. Offerors may attach one additional single-sided page (per PPQ) to further describe how the project is similar to the RFP requirements.

In addition to the PPQ, the Offeror’s proposal shall include the Past Performance Questionnaire Summary Sheet (Attachment 2) to provide a summary of the PPQs included and/or submitted to clients. The summary sheet shall include information for all columns.

Offerors may identify state and local government and private contracts that are similar to the Government’s requirements described in 4.1.2.

If the Offeror is a joint venture, the projects do not have to have been performed by the joint venture submitting the offer. These project could have been performed by either company in the joint venture. Offerors are advised to submit projects wherein the Offeror, or proposed joint venture members, played a significant role and to clearly define those roles. If any Offeror has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division or unit submitting the offer. Ensure that the PPQs submitted for this Factor clearly describe the relevant characteristics of the project.

4.1.2 Offeror shall submit a minimum of three (3), but no more than five (5), recent relevant projects that have a minimum value of no less than $3 million each. Projects with similar size, scope, and complexity of the following may be considered relevant projects:

Design-build or design-bid-build construction of Medical Facilities, Headquarters and Operational Facilities, Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIFs), Administrative & Office Buildings, Educational Facilities, Military Training Facilities, Weapons Training Facilities, Animal Training & Storage Facilities, Religious Facilities, Recreational & Storage Facilities, Dining Facilities, Vehicle Maintenance Facilities, Aircraft Storage Facilities, Air Traffic Control Towers/Facilities, Barracks Buildings, Ranges, and Access Control Points.

At least three of the five projects MUST be Design-Build construction.

All projects must be successfully completed or fully designed and at least 50% construction progress completed within six (6) years preceding the date of this solicitation. Projects that meet these criteria will be evaluated to determine the level of relevancy.

Please note that projects submitted by design firms will not be evaluated in this factor. Design firms shall submit projects in accordance with the requirements in Factor 3.

4.1.3 Offerors shall submit no more than five (5) PPQs (Attachment 3) in accordance with 4.1.2. Project information shall be limited to the PPQ and one additional page. Where a project was awarded as a task order or delivery order under an IDIQ type contract, Offerors are cautioned to submit information specific to the task or delivery order considered relevant to the requirements of this RFP, rather than the umbrella contract. For purposes of this Request for Proposal, if the Offeror is submitting as a Joint Venture, no more than five (5) total project examples may be submitted for the entire JV. If an Offeror submits more than five (5) total project examples, only the first five

(5) will be evaluated. Offerors are advised to submit projects wherein the Offeror played a significant role and to clearly define those roles. Offerors shall submit only projects wherein the Offeror or proposed joint venture members were the prime contractors and played a significant role in the successful completion of the project. If any firm has multiple functions or divisions, limit the project examples to those performed by the division, unit or team member submitting the offer.

4.1.4 Other Sources. In addition to the above, the Government may review any other sources other than those provided by the Offeror for evaluating past performance and experience. These other sources may include but are not limited to, past performance and experience information retrieved through the Past Performance Information Retrieval System (PPIRS), including Contractor Performance Assessment Reporting System (CPARS), using all CAGE/DUNS numbers identified in the proposal on the Proposal Data Sheet, inquiries of owner representative(s), Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS), Electronic Subcontract Reporting System (eSRS), and any other known sources not provided by the Offeror. If a CPARS evaluation exists for a submitted project, it will be considered.

4.1.5 While the Government may elect to consider data from other sources, the offeror must provide detailed, current, accurate and complete past performance information for evaluation by the Government.

4.1.6 The experience and/or past performance of individuals will NOT be considered under this factor.

4.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA.

4.2.1 Past Performance Evaluation: The past performance and experience evaluation results in an assessment of the Government’s confidence in the ability of the Offeror to meet the solicitation requirements. The past performance evaluation considers each Offeror’s demonstrated record of performance and experience on recent and relevant projects that involve a similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires. One performance confidence assessment rating is assigned for each Offeror after evaluating the Offeror’s recent past performance and experience, focusing on performance and experience that is relevant to the contract requirements.

4.2.2 If a firm has multiple functions or divisions, the Government will only evaluate the past performance and experience of the unit or division submitting the offer.

4.2.3 Recency and Relevancy Evaluation: Projects must meet the minimum criteria in paragraph

4.1.2 in order to be considered recent and relevant and will be evaluated against the requirements of the RFP. The Government will not consider multiple projects, such as individual task orders, combined to meet the minimum value. Projects will be evaluated for relevancy based on the description of the project. Past performance evaluations on projects that are not relevant will not be considered.

Table 1. Past Performance Relevancy Rating Method:

Rating Definition

Very Relevant Present/past performance effort involved essentially the same scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Relevant Present/past performance effort involved similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Somewhat Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved some of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

Not Relevant

Present/past performance effort involved little or none of the scope and magnitude of effort and complexities this solicitation requires.

4.2.4 Offerors may increase the Source Selection Evaluation Board”s (SSEB) level of confidence by demonstrating previous experience where the Offeror and the design firm(s) in Factor 3 worked together.

4.2.5 Confidence Assessment:

4.2.5.1 Offerors may increase the SSEB’s level of confidence if they are able to demonstrate successful performance in a wide variety of work as described in paragraph 4.1.2. Conversely, the SSEB may have a decreased level of confidence in Offerors whose experience is limited amongst the project types described in paragraph 4.1.2. Offerors may increase the SSEB’s level of confidence if they submit more than three Design-Build projects.

4.2.5.2 The Government will evaluate the Offeror's past performance and experience using the sources available to it including but not limited to: the example projects identified by the Offeror and submitted on the PPQs and any additional information received from references and CPARS or other sources. Offerors may be provided an opportunity to address any negative past performance information about which the Offeror has not previously had an opportunity to respond if such information is determined to impact the rating to be assessed.

4.2.5.3 The Government will consider the recency of the performance, the relevancy including the context of the data, and the quality of the performance and general trends in performance and source of the information to reach a confidence assessment rating using Past Performance Confidence Ratings. See paragraphs 4.2.2, 4.2.3, 4.2.4, 4.2.5 and 4.2.6 for other factors that will be considered in reaching a confidence assessment.

4.2.5.4 If no recent/relevant performance record is available or the Offeror’s performance record and experience is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned this factor will be assigned a rating of “Unknown Confidence” (Neutral).

4.2.6. Table 2: Past Performance Confidence Ratings

Rating Definition Substantial Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a high expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Satisfactory Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a reasonable expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

Neutral Confidence

No recent/relevant performance record is available or the offeror’s performance record is so sparse that no meaningful confidence assessment rating can be reasonably assigned.

The offeror may not be evaluated favorably or unfavorably on the factor of past performance.

Limited Confidence

Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has a low expectation that the offeror will successfully perform the required effort.

No Confidence Based on the offeror’s recent/relevant performance record, the Government has no expectation that the offeror will be able to successfully perform the required effort.

5. PHASE ONE – TAB G – FACTOR 2 – MANAGEMENT APPROACH

5.1 SUBMISSION REQUIRMENTS: Offeror shall submit a narrative not to exceed eight (8) single sided pages, including charts and graphs that outlines how the Offeror will plan, execute, monitor and control projects under this MATOC. It should be presented as a high level management approach that the Offeror shall use when executing task orders under this contract. The plan should address the following topics:

Resource Management Schedule Management Quality Management Communications Management Design and Construction Management Change Management

5.1.1 Resource Management : Identify and explain the roles and responsibilities of team members that will perform major or critical aspects of this contract.

5.1.2 Resource Management: The Offeror shall provide a corporate organization chart that clearly indicates how the firm plans to organize and execute task orders. Include any key firms/subs or types of subcontractors that participate in task orders.

5.1.3 Resource Management: Describe how the Offeror manages resources and integrates construction subcontractors into the construction process.

5.1.4 Schedule Management: Describe the Offeror’s approach to schedule development and management.

5.1.5 Quality Management: Describe the Offeror’s Design and Construction Quality Control Program.

5.1.6 Communications Management: Describe the process for communications and reporting at the project and higher levels.

5.1.7 Design and Construction Management: Describe the Offeror’s processes for handling design and construction problems.

5.1.8 Change Management: Describe the Offeror’s process for integrating design changes after award and handling construction changes/modifications.

5.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

5.2.1 Management Approach Evaluation: The project plan should describe how the Offeror plans and executes the work in each of the management requirements above.

5.2.2 The Government will evaluate the strengths, weaknesses and any deficiencies in the submission. Based on the submission provided, the Government will evaluate the Offeror’s overall understanding of the design-build and design-bid-build process and its capability to execute an awarded contract.

5.2.3 The Offeror will be evaluated on how well defined and clear the management approach is for the submission requirements listed above.

5.2.4 Table 3: Management Approach Ratings

Adjectival Rating

Description

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is unacceptable. Proposal is unawardable.

Table 4: Definition of Risk:

Adjectival Rating Description

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant weaknesses that increases the risk of unsuccessful performance to an unacceptable level.

6. PHASE ONE – TAB H – FACTOR 3 - DESIGN EXPERIENCE

6.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS: Offeror shall submit a narrative not to exceed a total of five (5) single side pages describing its Design Experience or the intended Designer of Record’s (DOR) experience on a minimum of three (3), but no more than five (5) projects that have a minimum construction value of no less than $20 $3 million each and that demonstrate Design Experience similar to the various requirements described in paragraph 4.1.2 and subparagraphs. Three of the five projects MUST be Design-Build construction. Projects must be fully designed within six (6) years preceding the date of this solicitation. In the narrative, clearly state the project construction cost, if design-build or design-bid-build, the role of the AE, and date of design completion. In addition to the five (5) page narrative, Offerors may submit an additional two (2) single sided pages describing the relationship between the Prime and the Designer of Record for the performance of a subsequent contract (business agreement, formal arrangement, etc.).

6.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

6.2.1 The evaluation considers the demonstrated record of the Offeror’s DOR experience on recent and relevant projects that involve a similar scope and magnitude of effort and complexities as this solicitation requires.

6.2.2 Offerors may receive additional consideration in meeting the requirements of this Factor if they are able to demonstrate the successful design experience of the DOR in a wide variety of work as described in paragraph 4.1.2 and subparagraphs. Conversely, the DORs may receive less consideration from the SSEB if the experience is limited amongst the project types described in paragraph 4.1.2. DORs may receive additional consideration from the SSEB if they submit more than three Design-Build projects. DORs may also receive additional consideration if they submit evidence of business agreement/level of commitment to the Prime Offeror.

6.2.3 Table 5: Design Experience Ratings

Adjectival Rating

Description

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of

Table 6: Definition of Risk:

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Normal contractor effort and normal Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome any difficulties.

Moderate Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which may potentially cause disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring will likely be able to overcome difficulties.

High Proposal contains a significant weakness or combination of weaknesses which is likely to cause significant disruption of schedule, increased cost or degradation of performance. Is unlikely to overcome any difficulties, even with special contractor emphasis and close Government monitoring.

Unacceptable Proposal contains a material failure or a combination of significant

7. RELATIVE IMPORTANCE OF FACTORS

NON-COST FACTORS.

FACTOR 1: PAST PERFORMANCE. This factor is more important than Factor 2 and Factor 3.

FACTOR 2: MANAGEMENT APPROACH. This factor is less important than Factor 1 but more important than Factor 3.

FACTOR 3: DESIGN EXPERIENCE. This factor is less important than Factor 1 and Factor 2.

8. PHASE ONE – PROPOSAL EVALUATION.

8.1 The SSEB will be established to conduct the evaluation of proposals received in response to this solicitation.

The evaluation will be based on the content of the proposal, proposal corrections and any information obtained from other sources, e.g. past performance information. The SSEB will not consider any documents incorporated by reference, except as expressly allowed by this solicitation.

8.2 Each member of the SSEB will independently consider all information provided in the proposal. Once these individual analyses are completed, the SSEB will assign a consensus rating for each evaluation factor. It is the responsibility of each member of the SSEB to provide and document sufficient strengths, weaknesses, and/or deficiencies to support the assigned rating for each factor. Comments are required for all ratings.

8.3 The final ratings on individual factors, to include all support documentation, will be provided to the Source Selection Authority. The Source Selection Authority, independently exercising prudent business judgment, will determine which Offerors, if any, will proceed to phase two.

PHASE TWO – The submission requirements relate to the Seed Task Order.

PROPOSAL TABBING REQUIREMENTS. Phase Two proposals shall be organized and tabbed as follows:

VOLUME I – CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS AND PRICE PROPOSAL

TAB A – Standard Form 1442, completed and signed by authorized individual(s) of the Offeror. Offers submitted in the name of a Joint Venture must be signed in accordance with the terms and conditions specified in the joint venture.

TAB B – Proposal Pricing Schedule, Section 00 10 00 - Schedule A Base Contract Bid Schedule & Schedule B, Seed Task Order Pricing.

TAB C – Bid Bond – Solicitation Requirement: The Offeror is required to submit a bid bond validating the Offeror’s bonding capability for the Seed Task Order. Submit originals; photocopied or scanned copies are not acceptable. FAR clause 52.228-1, “Bid Guarantee” will be included in the contract.

VOLUME II – TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS

TAB D – FACTOR 4 – Design Technical – Building Function and Aesthetics

TAB E – FACTOR 5 – Design Technical – Quality of Building Systems

9. PHASE TWO – TAB D – FACTOR 4 - DESIGN TECHNICAL – BUILDING FUNCTION AND AESTHETICS

9.1 SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS.

9.1.1 PRESENTATION DRAWINGS

a. Presentation of exterior elevations of the facility clearly noting proposed materials and colors.

b. Schematic floor plans for each facility demonstrating adjacencies, room size requirements, and function.

c. Presentation of interior of the facility clearly noting proposed materials and colors.

d. A color board including primary interior and exterior finish materials.

9.1.2 TECHNICAL APPROACH NARRATIVE

a. Provide technical approach narrative, both qualitative and quantitative, defining the various technical elements of the proposal such as but not limited to: Fire and Life Safety Planning, ATFP Considerations, Mechanical Planning Considerations, Electrical Planning Considerations and other Major Systems Planning. Preface the narratives with a design concepts narrative, providing the design rationale and basis of the proposal. Whether individual narratives or a single combined narrative is provided, the maximum total length for narratives under this Factor shall not exceed ten (10) single sided pages.

b. Architectural Theme and Materials. Submit a narrative not exceed two (2) pages of the ten (10) pages allowed for this Factor. Describe the architectural themes of the various facilities and spaces which demonstrate how the proposal achieves the results desired by the Statement of Work. Narrative should address how the selection of materials and colors enhances the exterior and interior aesthetics of the facilities and improves the living and/or working conditions for the populations who will utilize the facilities. This narrative is not intended to be a material listing, but to explain/reflect how the selections were made and how they address the requirements in the Statement of Work.

9.2 EVALUATION CRITERIA:

9.2.1 FACTOR 4 – DESIGN TECHNICAL – BUILDING FUNCTION AND AESTHETICS: The following elements will be evaluated:

9.2.1.1 Do the facilities provide acceptable life safety and fire safety measures? (i.e. Does the proposal describe fire suppression systems, mass notification systems and type of fire alarm systems?)

9.2.1.2 Does the proposal describe ATFP Considerations, Mechanical Planning Considerations, Electrical Planning Considerations and other Major Systems Planning as they relate to the function of the building?

9.2.1.3 Building Aesthetics: This element considers the overall “appeal” of the facility and the desire that both the interior and exterior of the facilities present a professional, attractive appearance. The following will be considered under this component:

a. Exterior Considerations:

1) Does the proposal address design of facades, roof lines, and delineation of entrances, proportions of fenestration in relation to elevations, shade and shadow effects, materials, textures, exterior color schemes.

2) Is the building complimentary of the adjacent structures? Is the building an attractive addition to the installation?

How well does the building harmonize with its environment, including surrounding facilities? (Does it look like all the other buildings adjacent to it/on the installation?)

3) Do the windows and doors meet the ATFP?

4) Does the exterior color proposed match the IDG?

b. Interior Considerations:

1) Are the proposed colors and material finishes conducive to the working environment of the facility?

2) For administrative areas, does the interior design provided establish a positive working environment free from congestion and

3) Has the proposal addressed/provided for natural and artificial light in the living and working spaces and is the arrangement of fenestration and lighting fixtures in the spaces conducive to furniture placement and space usage?

4) Do the proposed ceiling material, elevation, and design enhance the environment?

5) Does the proposals provide for acoustic control of noise from service/support spaces to administrative areas? (i.e.

walls and ceilings between administration areas and maintenance bays.)

9.3 Design Technical – Building Function and Aesthetics will be rated using the following adjectival descriptions.

Table 7:

Adjectival Rating

Description

Outstanding Proposal indicates an exceptional approach and understanding of the requirements and contains multiple strengths, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low.

Good Proposal indicates a thorough approach and understanding of the requirements and contains at least one strength, and risk of unsuccessful performance is low to moderate.

Acceptable Proposal meets requirements and indicates an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and risk of unsuccessful performance is no worse than moderate.

Marginal Proposal has not demonstrated an adequate approach and understanding of the requirements, and/or risk of unsuccessful performance is high.

Unacceptable Proposal does not meet requirements of the solicitation, and thus, contains one or more deficiencies, and/or risk of

Table 8: Definition of Risk:

Low Proposal may contain weakness(es) which have little potential to cause disruption of schedule, increased…